start_task

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the status change and that start time is recorded, which is helpful. However, it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or failure behavior if the task is not in PENDING state, leaving some gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear one-line summary followed by the state change explanation and formatted Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the primary action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple state transition tool, the description covers the main function and return value. However, it lacks explicit mention of preconditions (task must be PENDING) or error scenarios, which could be important given the sibling tools and the presence of an output schema. The description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has only one parameter, task_id, with no description. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining it as 'ID of the task to start', which clarifies its role. Since the parameter is well-named and simple, this is sufficient, though it could be more detailed about accepted formats.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Start working on a task' and specifies the exact state change from PENDING to IN_PROGRESS. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pause_task, complete_task, and cancel_task, which handle other state transitions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the task must be in PENDING state in order to change to IN_PROGRESS, providing clear context for use. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the state transition guidance is sufficient for selecting this tool over siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.